I have not been following this debate -- too close to the end of the semester. I did agree with what Rakesh said here. To me, slaveowners were a mix of capitalist and precapitalist mentalities. No single characterization would apply, outside their profiting from of the abomination of slavery. Many certainly used the slave-produced food to lower variable capital, even though the South imported an enormous amount of food. One of the problems was that theft of food -- reports of stolen hogs seem to be the most commonly reported problem. Rakesh Bhandari wrote: > Nicky wrote in 7227 > > >Hi Riccardo, > >Thank you for the following comment on the nature of 'flames', which I > >interpreted in the exactly the same manner as you did: > > > >> (ii) may be it is a problem of language and culture, but translated > >>in Italian, a parenthetical like "even Nicky who seems to be Jerry's > >>good friend etc.", implying that an argument by Nicky in favour of > >>Jerry should be due to the fact that she must be "a good friend" of > >>him, would be judged as a flame. > > Nicky and Riccardo, > > I don't see how pointing to my putative bad behavior in any way > answers the question of whether the moderator has offended. That I > may have flamed someone does not mean that someone else hasn't also > flamed someone. Sharing the blame with someone does not obviate his > own blameworthiness. > > At any rate, I meant to say that disagreement between Jerry and Nicky > over x (moderation) cannot be plausibly attributed to their not being > good friends while disagreement between Jerry and me over x could be > understood to have been motivated by strong (if not nasty) > disagreements over y (the capitalist character of plantation > slavery). In other words, I was attempting to free myself of a > charge of hidden motives, not to flame my good friend Nicky. > > [By the way, one of the interesting things about that previous debate > over y was the non intervention by Michael P who after all argues > that in some cases where capitalists can extra economically coerce > proletarians to engage in commodity production even after they have > already produced much of their own subsistence, capitalists can > enjoy a higher rate of surplus value than if it had to make money > payments which are in themselves sufficient for the reproduction of > labor power--in other words, Michael argues that the self production > of subsistence may not only not make the production of value > impossible, it may in certain cases work to raise the rate of > surplus value by decreasing the money that capitalists have to pay > for the reproduction of labor power (the Cuban historian Fraginales > and Robin Blackburn both made the same point). > > Of course plantation capitalists still had to spend sums of money > for the reproduction of slave power (on cotton clothes, shoes, > housing and church materials, fish, etc). The value of that expended > money was of course less than the new value which slaves objectified > in what were commodities from the start: there was less labor time in > the former than the latter. Which is why Marx thought it was > meaningful to speak of the rate of exploitation of modern slaves and > compare that rate to free wage workers. > > Of course a plantation capitalist must have reached the conclusion > that the commodities (sugar, cotton, tobacco, indigo, etc.) which > could have been produced in that time slaves were allowed to produce > their own subsistence would have yielded less money value than the > money it would have required to have purchased on the market those > subsistence goods that slaves themselves produced. Of course if those > subsistence goods were not even available on the market, then the > capitalist had no choice than to have slaves produce their own > subsistence. And in a calculating and calculated system it often > made sense to allow slaves to produce much of their own food > subsistence even if that meant condemning them to a bland, uniform > diet while higher quality food stuffs could be bought on the market. > > Capitalists also figured that those slaves who could be used to > produce food for immediate consumption were too infirm to engage in > say the backbreaking work of sugar production. So for plantation > capitalists the decision to use some slaves to produce food may have > entailed little opportunity cost in the form of foregone > commodities. It did however allow them to reduce (but not eliminate!) > variable capital (the money that they had to lay out for the > reproduction of slave labor power) and thus raise the rate of > exploitation. While condemning slaves to a miserable diet. > > Capitalism did not approach the pure form in these historical > instances which their "impurity" should not make them any less > historically relevant to Marxists (has anyone read Hamza Alavi's > Capitalism and Colonialism?). And what was the pure case in the 15 to > early 18th centuries anyway? Servants in husbandry in the English > countryside seem to have produced much of their own food needs as > well. And which example better approximated the cooperative, large > scale, intense, gang like nature of the labor process that is usually > a mark of real subsumption? At any rate, let it be noted that > Michael P's historical research and theoretical model are very much > in my favor: slaves (not all slaves, Nicky, though this would include > those Scottish mining slaves of Adam Smith's time) can produce > surplus value despite being slaves and even if they produce their own > food subsistence. > > Or in other words: despite owning slaves slave owners can at times > primarily appropriate surplus labor not through the command of a > product in kind or a product meant for immediate consumption or > direct labor services but through the production of those > capitalistic Commodities which are tendentially realized at prices of > production. Not only that: modern plantation slavery was such a > system that commodities had to be tendentially realized at prices of > production if plantations were to remain viable enterprises. Marx > thus compared slave plantations as capitalist enterprises to settler > colony peasantries which were under no pressure to realize prices of > production for those commodities that they dumped on the market after > their consumption requirements had been met. > > Maybe Michael P will say a word about his excavation of the history > of primitive accumulation and hiw own views as to whether extra > economic coercion has been incompatible with capitalist exploitation? > In referencing Grossmann, Eric Williams, William Darity, Fraginales, > Blackburn, Dobb, Sweezy, Brenner, Wood, Albritton and others, I have > tried to underline that my interest here is not an idiosyncratic one.] > > Rakesh -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University michael@ecst.csuchico.edu Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sun Jun 02 2002 - 00:00:07 EDT